IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DAWN SNELLING, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. Civil Action 2:11-CV-983 

 Judge Sargus 

 Magistrate Judge King 

 

ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 39. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Compel. Defendants ATC Healthcare Services, Inc. and Nursemate, 

Inc’s Memorandum Contra Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (“Defendants’ 

Response”), Doc. No. 48. Plaintiff has filed a reply. Plaintiff’s 

Reply in Support to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (“Plaintiff’s 

Reply”), Doc. No. 49. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

I. Background 

 Plaintiff Dawn Snelling, acting on behalf of herself and a class 

of plaintiffs, brings this action against defendants ATC Healthcare 

Services Inc., and Nursemate, Inc., seeking unpaid overtime 

compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 

202, et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. § 

4111.03. The First Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 47, alleges the 

following: 

Case: 2:11-cv-00983-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 02/07/13 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Defendants provide nursing care to prisons throughout the state 

of Ohio. Id at ¶¶ 37, 40. Plaintiff has worked as a nurse for 

defendants and provided nursing care to prisoners at various state-run 

prisons. Id. at ¶ 40. Plaintiff and other nurses were paid on a 

weekly basis at an hourly rate. Id. at ¶¶ 39, 43. On various 

occasions since November 3, 2008, plaintiff and other nurses worked in 

excess of forty hours per week and defendants, knowingly and 

willfully, failed to pay overtime premiums in violation of the FLSA. 

Id. at ¶¶ 49-50. Defendants “fraudulently altered the payroll 

records” of plaintiff and other nurses, reduced their overtime rates, 

and reduced their regular hourly rates to prevent them from receiving 

the proper amount of overtime pay. Id. at ¶¶ 52-54. 

Defendants now seek to compel responses to interrogatories and 

document requests. 

II. Standard 

Determining the proper scope of discovery falls within the broad 

discretion of the trial court. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 

F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure authorizes a motion to compel discovery when a party fails 

to provide a proper response to interrogatories under Rule 33 or 

requests for production of documents under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

37(a)(3)(B). “The proponent of a motion to compel discovery bears the 

initial burden of proving that the information sought is relevant.” 

Martin v. Select Portfolio Serving Holding Corp., No. 1:05–cv–273, 

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68779, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2006) (citing 

Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 154, 159 (D.D.C. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00983-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 02/07/13 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

1999)). Finally, the party moving to compel discovery must certify 

that it “has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the 

person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort 

to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). See 

also S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.2. This prerequisite has been met in this 

case. 

III. Discussion 

Plaintiff seeks to compel response to the following 

interrogatory: 

3. Please provide a list of all individuals, including his 

or her name, sex, residential and business addresses, 

residential and business telephone numbers, email 

addresses, job title, dates of employment, social security 

numbers, and rate of pay throughout his or her employment, 

that Defendant has employed in the State of Ohio as hourly 

paid employees from November 3, 2008 through the present. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, p. 5. Plaintiff also seeks to compel 

response to the following document requests: 

3. Produce Plaintiff’s complete personnel file, including, 

but not limited to, forms, memoranda, communications, 

performance appraisals, payroll records, records reflecting 

any term of compensation or benefits, raises, changes in 

compensation or benefits, and any other document that has 

ever been contained in such file.1

. . . 

9. Produce documents sufficient to identify the names, last 

known address and/or any and all forwarding addresses, 

email addresses, hire dates, titles and termination dates 

and reason for termination, if applicable, of all 

individuals identified in response to Interrogatory No.3 

above. 

. . . 

 

1

 It is unclear why this document request is included in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. The request is not specifically 

addressed in the motion and defendants’ response to the request provides that they would “produce all documents, 

which are non-privileged, and are relevant and response to this request.” Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, p. 5. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00983-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 02/07/13 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

13. Produce all records, including but not limited to work 

schedules for individuals identified in response to 

Interrogatory No.3 above showing the days on which, and the 

hours during which, any and all individuals, including 

Plaintiff, worked for Defendant since January 1, 2008. 

. . . 

14. Produce all records including personnel and payroll 

records for individuals identified in response to 

Interrogatory No. 3 above showing the amount of 

compensation Defendant paid to each individual, including 

Plaintiff, since January 1, 2008. 

. . . 

17. Produce any and all records pertaining to all persons 

employed by Defendants since November 1, 2008 where such 

records contain any or all of the information that 

employers are required to maintain concerning their 

employees pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 516.2 and/or O.R.C. 

4111.08. 

Id. 

Defendants have not specifically objected to any particular 

interrogatory or document request or any portion thereof. Instead, 

defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on two grounds. 

Defendants first argue that the names and contact information of the 

Ohio nurses employed by defendants is not discoverable until the Court 

rules on plaintiff’s motions to certify a class, Doc. Nos. 10, 36. 

Defendants’ Response, pp. 1, 3-4, 6-10. In this regard, defendants 

argue that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be denied and discovery 

should be limited to the 12 employees whom plaintiff presently 

identifies as the individuals whose pay rates were changed. Id. at p. 

1. 

Defendants’ first argument is moot. On December 4, 2012, the 

Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Class Certification, 

Doc. No. 10, and conditionally certified a statewide class for 

Case: 2:11-cv-00983-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 02/07/13 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5 

plaintiff’s FLSA claim “consisting of all [d]efendants’ current and 

former Ohio nurses, since November 3, 2008, who could potentially 

pursue claims for FLSA overtime and minimum wage violations.” See 

Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 54, pp. 2, 7-8, 11. The Court also 

ordered defendants to “produce contact information for the nurses they 

employed during the relevant period.” Id. at p. 11. 

Defendants also opposes Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on the 

ground that the requested discovery is irrelevant to plaintiff’s sole 

claim — “the modification of overtime hour pay rates.” Defendants’ 

Response, p. 4. Defendants maintain that “the only discovery 

necessary” is that “necessary to determine what rates of pay were paid 

to employees who worked overtime in comparison to their non-overtime 

rates of pay.” Id. at p. 5. Defendants further maintain that the 

actual payroll records are not relevant because the information 

plaintiff needs is contained in the payroll report summaries that have 

already been provided to plaintiff. Id. Those reports show each 

nurse’s “employee number, hours worked and rate of pay for each hour.” 

Id. at p. 2. 

Defendants’ second argument is without merit. Plaintiff seeks 

unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA for defendants’ alleged 

knowing and willful failure to pay overtime premiums to non-exempt 

nurses who worked in excess of forty hours per week. See First 

Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 49-54. Plaintiff’s FLSA claims are not, as 

defendants argue, based solely on “the modification of overtime hour 

pay rates.” The conditional class is accordingly not limited to FLSA 

claims based on a modification of overtime pay rates; the class 

Case: 2:11-cv-00983-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 02/07/13 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6 

consists of all of defendants’ “current and former Ohio nurses, since 

November 3, 2008, who could potentially pursue claims for FLSA 

overtime and minimum wage violations.” See Opinion and Order, Doc. 

No. 54, pp. 2, 7-8, 11. Furthermore, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, 

that defendants “fraudulently altered the payroll records” of 

plaintiff and other nurses. Id. at ¶ 52. The actual payroll records 

and time sheets are therefore relevant to a determination of whether 

defendants properly paid its nurses overtime during the relevant time 

period. 

Plaintiff maintains that the discovery requests at issue seek 

the identity of the putative class, contact information for 

the putative class, all payroll records and timesheets of 

the putative class (including Plaintiff) which Defendants 

are required to maintain under federal and state law, 

schedules for the three year time period, and documents 

sufficient to identify the hourly rate for each putative 

class member. 

Id. at p. 8. It is not apparent to the Court how, given the foregoing 

explanation, the “sex” and “social security numbers” for the Ohio 

nurses employed by defendants, or documents relating to the “reason 

for termination” of any of the Ohio nurses, is relevant to plaintiff’s 

claims. The First Amended Complaint does not allege any form of 

retaliation or discrimination, let alone sex discrimination. The sex 

and social security numbers, and the basis for termination, of the 

Ohio nurses is therefore not likely to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. 

 It is also unclear to the Court why plaintiff’s 13th, 14th and 

17th document requests seek documents dating to January 1 and November 

1, 2008. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, p. 5. The class 

Case: 2:11-cv-00983-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 02/07/13 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7 

conditionally certified is limited to the Ohio nurses employed by 

defendants since November 3, 2008; see Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 54, 

pp. 2, 7-8, 11; the misconduct alleged in the First Amended Complaint

is limited to the period beginning November 3, 2008; see First Amended 

Complaint, ¶¶ 37, 49, 58-59; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

represents that plaintiff seeks only records from “the three year time 

period” beginning November 3, 2008. See Motion to Compel, p. 8. The 

personnel and payroll records, work schedules, and other documents 

sought prior to that date are therefore not relevant to plaintiff’s 

claims. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 39 

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is not entitled to 

discovery of the sex or social security numbers, or documentation of 

the reason for the termination, of any of the Ohio nurses employed by 

defendants. Plaintiff’s 13th, 14th and 17th document requests are 

further limited to the period beginning November 3, 2008. In all 

other respects, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. 

February 7, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00983-EAS-NMK Doc #: 61 Filed: 02/07/13 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>